[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.238.190.122. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Editorial
March 27, 2013

Concerns About Reliability in the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT)

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliation: Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.

JAMA. 2013;309(12):1293-1294. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.2778

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the most robust source of scientific evidence to inform the medical community about the benefits and risks of therapeutic interventions. In recommendations for practitioners, treatment guidelines recognize the special value of RCTs by designating such studies as the highest level of evidence in assessing the efficacy of various therapeutic strategies. However, despite the acknowledged importance of RCTs, all randomized trials are not equivalent in reliability, credibility, and value. Every trial has limitations that can compromise the study's interpretability and undermine the strength of its conclusions. In extreme cases, a poor-quality RCT can lead to important patient and societal harms.1,2

×